Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Back to the 70s: Trashing the CIA to Bail Out Speaker Pelosi

Democrat Jan Schakowsky of Illinois proved last week why President Barack Obama was right to threaten to veto a bill that could give more politicians access to classified briefings about covert CIA operations...Schakowsky took to the airwaves to accuse the CIA of misleading Congress on the orders of former Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Schakowsky and a handful of other Democrats, CIA director Leon Panetta told them at a classified briefing last month that the agency had practiced "systematic deception" for years. She demanded an investigation and suggested that charges could be brought against CIA officials...But the CIA denied Panetta had made any such admission -- and even Schakowsky had to allow that Panetta's briefing concerned "one occasion." That occasion was a program, conceived in 2001 but never implemented, to track and target Al-Qaeda terrorists around the world...Protecting Pelosi, Not America, Joel Pollak, American Thinker, 7/15/2009

Excuse us if we're wrong, but didn't the current President spend a great deal of rhetorical wind upon the failure of the Bush Administration to target Al Qaeda?

Speaker Pelosi, in a well-documented lie, claimed she had never been briefed on water-boarding. Of course, she had been. She was embarrassed. Her power was threatened in the House. So, now, she and her colleagues have come up with a 1970s style show trial proposition to deal with that and, not so incidentally, put at risk any CIA operation against Al Qaeda, not to mention the agents and assets in play for such a purpose. Democrats have pulled this before, as in the hearings in the 1970s that ended with the CIA severely crippled in its intelligence-gathering capacity, a traitor (Agee) as a bestselling author, and national security undercut such that an 8th century regime in Iran was able to hold off American "power" for over a year.

Actions have consequences, Speaker Pelosi, a truism lost apparently in California, as much in its national representatives as in its state legislature.


No comments: